Proving a negative is always a challenge, but there's mounting evidence that the controversial $787 billion stimulus bill is achieving one of its major goals: shortening the recession.
Economists at Goldman Sachs say that the bill, officially called the American Recovery and Reconstruction Act, has resulted in a 2%-3% boost to annual GDP in the second and third quarters of this year, turning what could have been a worsening recession into potential growth.
For President Barack Obama, whose poll numbers have dropped precipitously from around 65% to around 50% as Americans have become worried about government spending and health-care reform, that should be good news: he fought hard against Republican opposition to push the bill through Congress as one of his first legislative acts, and the fact that it's working should be a vindication.
But it's not that easy. Recent polls show widespread disapproval of the stimulus bill: 51% of Americans polled last month by USA Today and Gallup said they thought the government should be spending less under the plan, while 44% said they thought the government was spending the right amount, or should be spending more. If anything, it seems, the stimulus plan is hurting the President even as it helps the country.
The most obvious reason for that disconnect is jobs: despite the signs of a turnaround, unemployment remains stubbornly high at 9.7%, with employers cutting 216,000 jobs in August. While jobs always trail economic rebounds, the unemployment number is higher than economists thought it would be, even in the worst case scenario forecast by the Treasury department's "stress tests" last spring. The point is not lost on Republicans, some of whom have argued lately that no more of the stimulus money should even be spent. "The metric of this bill was job creation," says Don Stewart, spokesman for the Senate's top Republican, Mitch McConnell, "and it hasn't done that."
Still, one would think that the mere infusion in six months of $88 billion into the economy — that's how much the government has spent so far — would buy Obama some good will; certainly many local and state politicians, including some who originally opposed the stimulus, have been quick to claim credit for stabilizing their economies with the federal largesse. Except, as it turns out, the very thing that makes the stimulus help the economy in the short term is a political loser: the program is giving most of its money to the poor. Of that $88 billion, the majority has gone to low-income recipients. Nearly $28 billion has flowed to Medicaid; $19 billion to unemployment payments; $10 billion to states to bolster educational programs that primarily target the poor; $4 billion to student financial assistance; and $1 billion to rental assistance, among the biggest ticket items alone. And that doesn't even include the share of the $62.5 billion in tax breaks available to the poor through the cut in withholding taxes; the Making Work Pay program, which gives tax breaks to wage earners; and the extension of COBRA Health insurance benefits.
All of that money works well to stimulate the economy because the poor don't save — they spend, and fast. "Recovery money aimed at low and moderate income households has a dual benefit," says Chad Stone, chief economist at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Besides relieving hardship, it gets spent quickly, stimulating economic activity that would not otherwise take place." (See 10 things to buy during the recession.)
But giving money to the poor never won anyone many crucial swing votes. The poor are already disproportionately likely to vote for the Democrats and Obama, if they vote at all. And at a time when the President is under attack from the right wing for being a free spending leftist, shoveling tens of billions into redistributive programs doesn't help his image with wavering independents who are nervous about the growth of government deficits.
The Administration is doing its best to push back. Joe Biden, Obama's point person on the stimulus bill, delivered a lengthy defense of it Thursday at the Brookings Institution. Thanks to the recovery act, he said, "Instead of talking about the beginning of a depression, we're talking about the end of a recession, eight months after taking office." Unfortunately for him and Obama, the money that is boosting the economy isn't boosting their poll numbers.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Friday, September 04, 2009
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Is President Obama Against Abortion?
The biggest dividing issues in American Politics have been Gay Rights and Abortion. These issues sparked a major political power struggle that has come to be known as the culture wars. These issues were the major platform for the Republican Party helping it eventually gain control of both the White House and the Congress. With The Election of President Obama it was the first time in 8 years a democratic presidential nominee was able to address these issues successfully. So how did President Obama present these two politically volatile issues to the voters in a way that they could accept and understand the Democrat’s positions?
President Obama first has presented himself as a pragmatist. He used his significant communication skills and conveyed common sense approach to social issues that most voters could agree with. In the case of Gay Marriage he pushed the argument that Gay marriage was a private matter between two consenting adults. He also agreed with the policy of letting each state decide on the issue. The success of this approach has been proven by approval of gay marriage in Maine Iowa, New Hampshire, and Vermont. With the momentum provided by the state greater political support has grown for Gay right and full marriage rights.
In the case of Abortion President Obama used a situation that was filled with controversy to strengthen his position. When President Obama was invited to speak at Notre Dame University, there was great controversy considering that the school is a Catholic institution and the Church opposes abortion and the president supports a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion. The controversy intensified as the day of the speech approached with major American clerics and cardinals deciding to boycott the commencement. President Obama took the controversy head on saying that the debate was necessary but appealed to a more civil discourse and that both sides work towards the common goal of reducing unwanted pregnancies through education and preventative measures. The President used the fact that neither side actually likes abortion and used that point of agreement as a foundation for cooperation.
Finally, the President is attuned to the times. In both cases popular sentiment has shifted from previous positions. This has given the president the political will to find a middle way where none of his predecessors could. Using common sense approaches and civil language President Obama has mostly defused the impact of the culture wars on modern politics in the U.S.
President Obama first has presented himself as a pragmatist. He used his significant communication skills and conveyed common sense approach to social issues that most voters could agree with. In the case of Gay Marriage he pushed the argument that Gay marriage was a private matter between two consenting adults. He also agreed with the policy of letting each state decide on the issue. The success of this approach has been proven by approval of gay marriage in Maine Iowa, New Hampshire, and Vermont. With the momentum provided by the state greater political support has grown for Gay right and full marriage rights.
In the case of Abortion President Obama used a situation that was filled with controversy to strengthen his position. When President Obama was invited to speak at Notre Dame University, there was great controversy considering that the school is a Catholic institution and the Church opposes abortion and the president supports a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion. The controversy intensified as the day of the speech approached with major American clerics and cardinals deciding to boycott the commencement. President Obama took the controversy head on saying that the debate was necessary but appealed to a more civil discourse and that both sides work towards the common goal of reducing unwanted pregnancies through education and preventative measures. The President used the fact that neither side actually likes abortion and used that point of agreement as a foundation for cooperation.
Finally, the President is attuned to the times. In both cases popular sentiment has shifted from previous positions. This has given the president the political will to find a middle way where none of his predecessors could. Using common sense approaches and civil language President Obama has mostly defused the impact of the culture wars on modern politics in the U.S.
Obama’s “Real Health Care Reform”
The battle in joined. Healthcare is now in the forefront. The Washington Post reported that things will start to heat up next month as the clash begins in earnest. Senator Kennedy plans to fight for a government controlled health care plan. This plan will be similar to the one implemented in 2006 by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Or like the great Medicare plan we have. Kennedy foresees a reform plan in which the federal government will compete directly with private health care insurance companies. President Obama will kick off his program June 6 with the “Real Health Care Reform” program.
The Kennedy plan that came out of the Senate also plans to open up Medicaid to a family of four with an income below $110,000 per year. In addition, it makes all physicians participate in Medicare. None can opt out. This will continue to make it difficult for physicians to run an office as Medicare pays about one third the normal fee of a private insurance. We commented before on how this will hamper access and alter physician practice and training. We will see less people go into medicine. Unexpected consequences will happen again, but now in medicine. Kennedy et al will need to move more to the middle of the road.
Everyone talks about the Massachusetts program as if it were a great success. It is not. The costs are just being observed and will continue to grow and put stress on a budget already ill. What can we look for if the federal government undertakes the Kennedy plan? Where will the money come from? President Obama says some will come from the technology changes he just brought on within the healthcare industry. Going to computerized medical records is the plan, but even Obama’s budget people (Orzag) don’t think we will save much here. Plus we know the healthcare consortium already said it did not agree to Obama’s 1.5% savings plan. They really didn’t mean it after some thought in the Washington water holes. We must look elsewhere for the money. That brings us to the 300 billion dollar tax exclusion money. If companies did not get the tax exclusion for their health care costs, that would be taxable money in the treasury. But the fight will be against the unions who have expensive insurance but with great benefits. A battle is looming over the summer in Congress.
Finally, we have to cite the article by Krishna Guha of the Financial Times (May 28th) in which we find more government double speak. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that if the health care reform leads to a market tightly controlled, it would consider it run by the government. Neither Congress of Obama appears to want that. The CBO said that if mandated coverage was above 80%, it would consider this a government controlled entity. Medicare pays 75% or less. Politically this is a sensitive issue because you have government control, on the one hand, and continued private enterprise on the other. In the face of this reform, if that isn’t double spoken, what is?
The Kennedy plan that came out of the Senate also plans to open up Medicaid to a family of four with an income below $110,000 per year. In addition, it makes all physicians participate in Medicare. None can opt out. This will continue to make it difficult for physicians to run an office as Medicare pays about one third the normal fee of a private insurance. We commented before on how this will hamper access and alter physician practice and training. We will see less people go into medicine. Unexpected consequences will happen again, but now in medicine. Kennedy et al will need to move more to the middle of the road.
Everyone talks about the Massachusetts program as if it were a great success. It is not. The costs are just being observed and will continue to grow and put stress on a budget already ill. What can we look for if the federal government undertakes the Kennedy plan? Where will the money come from? President Obama says some will come from the technology changes he just brought on within the healthcare industry. Going to computerized medical records is the plan, but even Obama’s budget people (Orzag) don’t think we will save much here. Plus we know the healthcare consortium already said it did not agree to Obama’s 1.5% savings plan. They really didn’t mean it after some thought in the Washington water holes. We must look elsewhere for the money. That brings us to the 300 billion dollar tax exclusion money. If companies did not get the tax exclusion for their health care costs, that would be taxable money in the treasury. But the fight will be against the unions who have expensive insurance but with great benefits. A battle is looming over the summer in Congress.
Finally, we have to cite the article by Krishna Guha of the Financial Times (May 28th) in which we find more government double speak. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that if the health care reform leads to a market tightly controlled, it would consider it run by the government. Neither Congress of Obama appears to want that. The CBO said that if mandated coverage was above 80%, it would consider this a government controlled entity. Medicare pays 75% or less. Politically this is a sensitive issue because you have government control, on the one hand, and continued private enterprise on the other. In the face of this reform, if that isn’t double spoken, what is?
Obama prepares for talks in Moscow amidst Rumors of Relationship strain between Putin and Obama
US President, Barack Obama, has scheduled a visit to Moscow, Russia to discuss various political issues and reconciliation with Russia’s Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin and with Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev. President Obama aspires to update the approach of diplomacy between Russia and the United States.
Obama describes Putin’s approach with the US as still having, “one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new.” Since Obama feels that the “old Cold War approaches” are “outdated”, he will attempt to develop a more timely relationship with Russia. Obama believes that Putin still has a lot of influence in Russia and hopes to reconcile as many differences as possible between them.
In April 2005, Vladimir Putin, Russia’s then-president, made a speech stating that Russia will develop democracy at its own pace and will not tolerate any outside interference from the United States. Since that speech, Putin has not progressed his views about relations with the United States. This is an attitude that Obama hopes to correct.
A motivating factor in Obama’s upcoming visit to Moscow is partly attributed to his outreach vow to foreign leaders. Obama is looking to develop a “very good relationship” with Medvedev, Russia’s president. Part of Obama’s approach with Russia is to reduce nuclear arms in the world.
Obama admits that Russia has not been an obstacle in confronting Iran or North Korea in their zeal to amass nuclear arms. However, Obama would like open communication with Russia instead of propaganda, posturing or messaging.
Indeed, communication and good relations are in order. As of last week, Russia debuted its 16 year-old project, its strategic nuclear-powered Yury Dolgoruki submarine. Testing has uncovered that the submarine vessel cannot accommodate Russia’s Bulava rocket, but nonetheless Russia’s Defense Ministry reports that this will be corrected in the next year.
Another challenge for Obama, standing in the way of a successful meeting with Russia, is the underground whispers of dissension between Putin and Medvedev. There are rumors between the two cabinets in Russia that “they may be playing various games” with each other.
Just in the last few days, the two leaders have confronted each other on gambling matters and retail sales. Another hurdle for Obama is the on-going conflict between the country of Georgia and Russia. Last August, the two countries engaged in a war lasting five days. Though the two countries publicly disagreed today in Geneva about their politics, more talks are scheduled to resume in Geneva on July 14 and on Sept. 17. It is Obama’s goal to further discuss a solution to the conflict between Georgia and Russia.
As Obama plans to visit Moscow this month, he might not receive the adulation that he did in Germany and in Cairo, inspiring his audience toward conflict resolution. Obama is predicted to be disappointed by Russia’s confidence in him. A recent poll by the BBC found that only 23 percent of Russians felt confident that Obama will “do the right thing in world affairs.”
Obama describes Putin’s approach with the US as still having, “one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new.” Since Obama feels that the “old Cold War approaches” are “outdated”, he will attempt to develop a more timely relationship with Russia. Obama believes that Putin still has a lot of influence in Russia and hopes to reconcile as many differences as possible between them.
In April 2005, Vladimir Putin, Russia’s then-president, made a speech stating that Russia will develop democracy at its own pace and will not tolerate any outside interference from the United States. Since that speech, Putin has not progressed his views about relations with the United States. This is an attitude that Obama hopes to correct.
A motivating factor in Obama’s upcoming visit to Moscow is partly attributed to his outreach vow to foreign leaders. Obama is looking to develop a “very good relationship” with Medvedev, Russia’s president. Part of Obama’s approach with Russia is to reduce nuclear arms in the world.
Obama admits that Russia has not been an obstacle in confronting Iran or North Korea in their zeal to amass nuclear arms. However, Obama would like open communication with Russia instead of propaganda, posturing or messaging.
Indeed, communication and good relations are in order. As of last week, Russia debuted its 16 year-old project, its strategic nuclear-powered Yury Dolgoruki submarine. Testing has uncovered that the submarine vessel cannot accommodate Russia’s Bulava rocket, but nonetheless Russia’s Defense Ministry reports that this will be corrected in the next year.
Another challenge for Obama, standing in the way of a successful meeting with Russia, is the underground whispers of dissension between Putin and Medvedev. There are rumors between the two cabinets in Russia that “they may be playing various games” with each other.
Just in the last few days, the two leaders have confronted each other on gambling matters and retail sales. Another hurdle for Obama is the on-going conflict between the country of Georgia and Russia. Last August, the two countries engaged in a war lasting five days. Though the two countries publicly disagreed today in Geneva about their politics, more talks are scheduled to resume in Geneva on July 14 and on Sept. 17. It is Obama’s goal to further discuss a solution to the conflict between Georgia and Russia.
As Obama plans to visit Moscow this month, he might not receive the adulation that he did in Germany and in Cairo, inspiring his audience toward conflict resolution. Obama is predicted to be disappointed by Russia’s confidence in him. A recent poll by the BBC found that only 23 percent of Russians felt confident that Obama will “do the right thing in world affairs.”
Saturday, April 25, 2009
FOX News Poll: Obama's First 100 Days
As Barack Obama closes in on his first 100 days as president, majorities of Americans approve of the job he is doing, are satisfied with what he has accomplished so far and think he is keeping his promises, according to a FOX News poll released Friday.
Obama's job approval rating comes in at 62 percent, down just three points from the 65 percent approval he received after his first week in office. Twenty-nine percent of Americans disapprove.
In addition, most people say Obama is doing a better job than they expected (26 percent) or meeting expectations (56 percent). Few say he is doing worse than expected (16 percent).
The president's approval is nearly identical to the job rating George W. Bush received at the same point in his first term, as 63 percent of Americans approved and 22 percent disapproved (April 18-19, 2001). One noticeable difference is that approval of Obama is much more divided along partisan lines today than Bush's ratings were eight years ago.
There is a wide 68 percentage point gap between the number of Democrats (92 percent) and Republicans (24 percent) who approve of the job Obama is doing. For Bush, there was a 50-point gap in April 2001.
After the September 11 attacks the partisan difference in Bush's approval narrowed significantly and was twenty-some points for months. Later, in the days leading up to the 2004 presidential election, the gap grew as wide as 79 points among registered voters as 90 percent of Republicans approved of the job Bush was doing, compared to 11 percent of Democrats.
Most Americans have a favorable opinion of Obama as a person: 68 percent favorable and 27 percent unfavorable. Similarly, at this point for Bush, 64 percent said they had a favorable view of him and 27 percent unfavorable (April 18-19, 2001).
First lady Michelle Obama is even more popular than her husband, as 73 percent of Americans have a positive view of her, up from 65 percent earlier this year (January 13-14, 2009).
Just over half of Americans (53 percent) approve of the job Joe Biden is doing as vice president, while 26 percent disapprove and 20 percent are unable to give an opinion. A 59 percent majority has a favorable opinion of Biden as a person and 28 percent unfavorable.
Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from April 22 to April 23. The poll has a 3-point error margin.
The poll also finds that 73 percent think Obama is honest and trustworthy, up from 60 percent in October 2008. Furthermore, more people today see Obama as a "doer" (43 percent) than a "talker" (30 percent), a reversal from pre-election polling when more people saw him as a talker (49 percent) rather than a doer (34 percent).
Foreign policy is the area where voters say the administration has done its best so far. Coming in a close second is the economy, which is also the area where the most voters say the administration has done its worst.
Things Are Getting Better
Most Americans — 69 percent — say they are satisfied with what Obama has accomplished in his first 100 days, and 57 percent think he is keeping the promises he made during the campaign.
Such positive marks are not surprising given that nearly half of Americans (46 percent) are satisfied with the way things are going in the country today, up significantly from 20 percent in mid-January. The increase in satisfaction is driven almost solely by Democrats: 17 percent said they were satisfied in January -- before Obama took office -- and 73 percent say they are satisfied today.
The number of people who rate the nation's economy as being in "excellent" or "good" condition has also increased from 5 percent a week before Obama took office to 12 percent today.
On the personal level, about a third (34 percent) say they are better off financially now than they were in January, while almost as many say they are worse off (30 percent) and another third says there has been no change in their financial situation (34 percent).
Nearly twice as many Americans think the actions Obama has taken since becoming president will help rather than hurt the nation's economy (52 percent to 28 percent). The gap is smaller when it comes to personal finances: 38 percent say Obama's actions will help them, while 25 percent say they will hurt. A third (33 percent) says the president's actions will not make much of a difference for their family.
The recently passed $3.6 trillion dollar budget makes nearly half of Americans feel less secure about the nation's financial future; 37 percent say more secure.
In general, more Americans say they prefer a smaller government that provides fewer services (50 percent) over a bigger government that provides more services (38 percent). And, by a 16 point margin, people think big government is a greater potential threat to the country's future than big business.
The poll also shows the public is significantly more likely to say the size of government has gotten bigger (42 percent) since Obama took office, than to say it has gotten smaller (8 percent). Some 42 percent say the size of government hasn't changed.
What's more, by a 27 point margin, people think Obama sees big business as the greater potential threat than big government.
While some 53 percent of Americans think Obama is making policy changes at the right speed, that's down from 66 percent in January. And the number saying he is changing policies too quickly has increased from 24 percent to 30 percent.
Obama Seen as More Liberal Than Most Americans
A slim 53 percent majority thinks Obama's positions on the issues are "about right," while 35 percent think he is "too liberal" and 6 percent say "too conservative."
When asked to compare Obama's views to most Americans, 54 percent think he is more liberal, 13 percent think more conservative, and 23 percent think his views are in line with the country.
More people think Obama has started bringing real change to Washington (51 percent) than think it is more of the "same partisan politics" (40 percent).
Even so, by a 12 point margin, Americans think Washington has become more "partisan and divisive" in the last few months than think it has become more "bipartisan and cooperative."
Few People Want a Mulligan for Their 2008 Vote
Overall, Americans say they are still satisfied with the way they voted in the 2008 presidential election. Among Obama voters, fully 93 percent are still satisfied, while 3 percent wish they had voted differently and 2 percent have mixed feelings.
For McCain voters 85 percent are still satisfied, 5 percent wish they had voted differently and 9 percent mixed feelings.
Looking ahead to 2012, just over half — 52 percent — say they would vote to reelect the president if the election were held today, including 79 percent of 2008 Obama voters.
via foxnews.com
Obama's job approval rating comes in at 62 percent, down just three points from the 65 percent approval he received after his first week in office. Twenty-nine percent of Americans disapprove.
In addition, most people say Obama is doing a better job than they expected (26 percent) or meeting expectations (56 percent). Few say he is doing worse than expected (16 percent).
The president's approval is nearly identical to the job rating George W. Bush received at the same point in his first term, as 63 percent of Americans approved and 22 percent disapproved (April 18-19, 2001). One noticeable difference is that approval of Obama is much more divided along partisan lines today than Bush's ratings were eight years ago.
There is a wide 68 percentage point gap between the number of Democrats (92 percent) and Republicans (24 percent) who approve of the job Obama is doing. For Bush, there was a 50-point gap in April 2001.
After the September 11 attacks the partisan difference in Bush's approval narrowed significantly and was twenty-some points for months. Later, in the days leading up to the 2004 presidential election, the gap grew as wide as 79 points among registered voters as 90 percent of Republicans approved of the job Bush was doing, compared to 11 percent of Democrats.
Most Americans have a favorable opinion of Obama as a person: 68 percent favorable and 27 percent unfavorable. Similarly, at this point for Bush, 64 percent said they had a favorable view of him and 27 percent unfavorable (April 18-19, 2001).
First lady Michelle Obama is even more popular than her husband, as 73 percent of Americans have a positive view of her, up from 65 percent earlier this year (January 13-14, 2009).
Just over half of Americans (53 percent) approve of the job Joe Biden is doing as vice president, while 26 percent disapprove and 20 percent are unable to give an opinion. A 59 percent majority has a favorable opinion of Biden as a person and 28 percent unfavorable.
Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from April 22 to April 23. The poll has a 3-point error margin.
The poll also finds that 73 percent think Obama is honest and trustworthy, up from 60 percent in October 2008. Furthermore, more people today see Obama as a "doer" (43 percent) than a "talker" (30 percent), a reversal from pre-election polling when more people saw him as a talker (49 percent) rather than a doer (34 percent).
Foreign policy is the area where voters say the administration has done its best so far. Coming in a close second is the economy, which is also the area where the most voters say the administration has done its worst.
Things Are Getting Better
Most Americans — 69 percent — say they are satisfied with what Obama has accomplished in his first 100 days, and 57 percent think he is keeping the promises he made during the campaign.
Such positive marks are not surprising given that nearly half of Americans (46 percent) are satisfied with the way things are going in the country today, up significantly from 20 percent in mid-January. The increase in satisfaction is driven almost solely by Democrats: 17 percent said they were satisfied in January -- before Obama took office -- and 73 percent say they are satisfied today.
The number of people who rate the nation's economy as being in "excellent" or "good" condition has also increased from 5 percent a week before Obama took office to 12 percent today.
On the personal level, about a third (34 percent) say they are better off financially now than they were in January, while almost as many say they are worse off (30 percent) and another third says there has been no change in their financial situation (34 percent).
Nearly twice as many Americans think the actions Obama has taken since becoming president will help rather than hurt the nation's economy (52 percent to 28 percent). The gap is smaller when it comes to personal finances: 38 percent say Obama's actions will help them, while 25 percent say they will hurt. A third (33 percent) says the president's actions will not make much of a difference for their family.
The recently passed $3.6 trillion dollar budget makes nearly half of Americans feel less secure about the nation's financial future; 37 percent say more secure.
In general, more Americans say they prefer a smaller government that provides fewer services (50 percent) over a bigger government that provides more services (38 percent). And, by a 16 point margin, people think big government is a greater potential threat to the country's future than big business.
The poll also shows the public is significantly more likely to say the size of government has gotten bigger (42 percent) since Obama took office, than to say it has gotten smaller (8 percent). Some 42 percent say the size of government hasn't changed.
What's more, by a 27 point margin, people think Obama sees big business as the greater potential threat than big government.
While some 53 percent of Americans think Obama is making policy changes at the right speed, that's down from 66 percent in January. And the number saying he is changing policies too quickly has increased from 24 percent to 30 percent.
Obama Seen as More Liberal Than Most Americans
A slim 53 percent majority thinks Obama's positions on the issues are "about right," while 35 percent think he is "too liberal" and 6 percent say "too conservative."
When asked to compare Obama's views to most Americans, 54 percent think he is more liberal, 13 percent think more conservative, and 23 percent think his views are in line with the country.
More people think Obama has started bringing real change to Washington (51 percent) than think it is more of the "same partisan politics" (40 percent).
Even so, by a 12 point margin, Americans think Washington has become more "partisan and divisive" in the last few months than think it has become more "bipartisan and cooperative."
Few People Want a Mulligan for Their 2008 Vote
Overall, Americans say they are still satisfied with the way they voted in the 2008 presidential election. Among Obama voters, fully 93 percent are still satisfied, while 3 percent wish they had voted differently and 2 percent have mixed feelings.
For McCain voters 85 percent are still satisfied, 5 percent wish they had voted differently and 9 percent mixed feelings.
Looking ahead to 2012, just over half — 52 percent — say they would vote to reelect the president if the election were held today, including 79 percent of 2008 Obama voters.
via foxnews.com
Gore tells GOP deniers they’re victims of ‘the Bernie Madoffs of global warming.’
ice President Al Gore, testifying to Congress, told GOP global warming deniers that they are the victims of "the Bernie Madoffs of global warming." After Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) mocked global warming as being responsible for the woes of the Dallas Cowboys, Gore said that he and other climate change deniers have been receiving bad information. He pointed out that a front-page story in today's New York Times reveals that the largest corporate polluters in the United States censored their climate scientists in 1995:
The largest corporate carbon polluters in America, 14 years ago, asked their own people to conduct a review of all of this science. And their own people told them, "What the international scientific community is saying is correct, there is no legitimate basis for denying it." Then, these large polluters committed a massive fraud far larger than Bernie Madoff's fraud. They are the Bernie Madoffs of global warming. They ordered the censoring and removal of the scientific review that they themselves conducted, and like Bernie Madoff, they lied to the people who trusted them in order to make money.
Gore concluded, "These corporations ought to apologize to the American people for conducting a massive fraud for the last 14 years."
Transcript:
BARTON: I was somewhat taken aback, Mr. Vice President, by the list of current environmental problems contributed to global warming. You did miss a few, though. the dallas cowboys have not won a playoff game in 10 years. You didn't mention that. And you also, as Mr. Markey pointed out to me, the New England Patriots did not make the Super Bowl. I would add those to the list of problems you enumerated.
...
GORE: Congressman Barton, I want to address the point you made about the science. I do not question your sincerity for one moment.
BARTON: And I do not question yours, so we are equal on that.
GORE: Thank you. I believe it is important to look at the sources of the science that we rely on. With all due respect, I believe that you have relied on people you have trusted who have given you bad information. I do not blame the investors who trusted Bernie Madoff, but he gave them bad information.
BARTON: I have never talked to Bernie Madoff.
GORE: I'm not saying that you have, but he gave them that information and committed a massive fraud that ended up hurting most of all the people who trusted him. Senator Warner made reference in his opening statement to the story on the front page of the New York Times this morning, absolutely incredible. The largest corporate carbon polluters in America, 14 years ago, asked their own people to conduct a review of all of this science. And their own people told them, "What the international scientific community is saying is correct, there is no legitimate basis for denying it." Then, these large polluters committed a massive fraud far larger than Bernie Madoff's fraud. They are the Bernie Madoffs of global warming. They ordered the censoring and removal of the scientific review that they themselves conducted, and like Bernie Madoff, they lied to the people who trusted them in order to make money. And the CEO of the largest . . .
BARTON: I will stipulate that CO2 concentrations are going up. there is no debate about that. there -- they are about 380 parts per million and they're going to rise to about 500 parts per million in the next 50 to 100 years. I will stipulate that. Now, the consequences of that, and that is because of man-made CO2, I think are debatable. I do not know about the scientific peer review that you just talked about, but if somebody lied about something 14 years ago, I am sure Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey will conduct am investigation oversight hearing into that. My question to you was about the cost of the allowance system. How are we gonna to pay for it? How many jobs are we going to lose? if you've got information about something that happened 14 years ago, I am sure, again, our chairman and subcommittee chairman -- Mr. Stupak, who's the oversight subcommittee chairman -- will look at it. But answer the question about costs, please.
GORE: It is on the front page of the New York Times today, by Andrew Revkin. They themselves conducted review and found a science about it's valid. And to the point you made a moment ago: they verified in their own studies that man-made global warming is raising temperatures and causing this crisis. Like Bernie Madoff, and they lied about it in order to make money. And they themselves profited. The ceo of the largest got a onetime payment of $400 million. Now, again, those who have trusted them and believed them are due an apology. These corporations ought to apologize to the American people for conducting a massive fraud for the last 14 years.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
A 1926 Brazilian sci-fi novel predicts a U.S. election determined by race and gender
A 1926 Brazilian sci-fi novel predicts a U.S. election determined by race and gender.
Monteiro Lobato is a household name in his native Brazil, best-known for "SÃtio do Picapau Amarelo" ("Yellow Woodpecker's Ranch"), a series of children's books that has been adapted for television on several occasions.
He was an active businessman and libertarian and is considered the founder of Brazil's publishing industry, but his 1926 science-fiction novel, O Presidente Negro (The Black President)—which foresaw technological, geopolitical, and environmental transformations—is attracting the most interest this year, since it anticipated a political landscape in which gender and race would determine the outcome of a U.S. presidential election.
O Presidente Negro envisions the 2228 U.S. presidential election. In that race, the white male incumbent, President Kerlog, finds himself running against Evelyn Astor, a white feminist, and James Roy Wilde, the cultivated and brilliant leader of the Black Association, "a man who is more than just a single man ... what we call a leader of the masses."
You may notice some similarities to the John McCain-Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama face-off; and so did Editora Globo, the publisher of O Presidente Negro, which reissued the novel during the Democratic primaries in a stroke of marketing genius. Prior to Obama's rise, O Presidente Negro was best-known as an odd sci-fi work, predicting the U.S. government's use of eugenics, a racist ideology that had attracted a following in Brazil at the time Lobato was writing (and, later, in Germany).
As a result of this association, more often than not, bookstores hid the novel at the bottom of a stack of titles in the Brazilian-literature section. (Today's Brazil is increasingly concerned with civil rights, as indicated by recent experiments with affirmative action in education and government.)
Of course, there are several differences between Lobato's story and the circumstances surrounding the 2008 election. In Lobato's fictional world, the United States prohibited the mixing of races—believing it would lead to "disintegration" or "denaturalization"—and thereby conserved white and black races in "a state of relative purity."
Lobato also failed to predict the civil rights movement, which undid his predictions of an extreme version of "separate but equal." Unlike Roy, born in a supposed age of "pure races," Obama, born of a white mother and black father, witnessed America's social revolution.
In the 2228 of the novel, the white women's party, the Sabinas (a reference to the Roman legend of the rape of the Sabine women), has apparently reached feminism's pinnacle: Women are no longer considered equal to men—they are simply different and entirely independent. Homo, the ruling white men's party, and the Sabinas each command 51 million voters.
In previous elections, voters sided with their gender, with no regard to race. But with the creation of the Black Association, black men and women unite to create the largest political party, giving Roy 54 million supporters.
Kerlog is forced to broker an alliance with Roy: black votes in exchange for easing the "Código da Raça" ("Race Code"), which set limits on the growth of the black population through selective breeding and genetic manipulation. To Kerlog's frustration, when the time comes to cast ballots, citizens loyally vote with their identity group, and the black man wins the presidency.
In response, Kerlog threatens race war. He persuades Astor to protect the interests of the white race and encourages an alliance. Lobato, at his most sexist, writes that Astor accepts this proposal on the grounds that man "is woman's husband for thousands of reasons ... long live man!" With hardly a second thought, she shepherds the 51 million female voters to the cause of the Homo Party.
Kerlog demonstrates to a despairing Roy that his race will never assume control, and on the morning Roy is set to assume the presidency, he is found dead in his office. (Lobato hints at murder.) Kerlog calls for a re-election and emerges victorious. White leaders then mastermind the end of the black race in America, using a senseless and tragic sterilization technique, and Roy's dream of serving as the first black man in the nation's most powerful post is left by the wayside.
Long considered a historical relic, O Presidente Negro's popularity had dwindled so much that Editora Globo let it fall out of print, but 6,000 copies have been sold since a March 2008 rerelease. Brazil's intellectuals, bookworms, and bloggers are now madly debating Lobato's racist proposition and gasping at the prescience of one of their country's most quixotic personalities.
Now that McCain has selected Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate—hoping, some critics say, that women will vote as a gender bloc, transferring loyalties to whichever party has a woman on the ticket—perhaps the publishing house can expect yet another sales bump. Only if Obama makes it to the White House would Lobato's prescience fall short. If that happens, maybe Editora Globo's sales streak will come to an end.
Monteiro Lobato is a household name in his native Brazil, best-known for "SÃtio do Picapau Amarelo" ("Yellow Woodpecker's Ranch"), a series of children's books that has been adapted for television on several occasions.
He was an active businessman and libertarian and is considered the founder of Brazil's publishing industry, but his 1926 science-fiction novel, O Presidente Negro (The Black President)—which foresaw technological, geopolitical, and environmental transformations—is attracting the most interest this year, since it anticipated a political landscape in which gender and race would determine the outcome of a U.S. presidential election.
O Presidente Negro envisions the 2228 U.S. presidential election. In that race, the white male incumbent, President Kerlog, finds himself running against Evelyn Astor, a white feminist, and James Roy Wilde, the cultivated and brilliant leader of the Black Association, "a man who is more than just a single man ... what we call a leader of the masses."
You may notice some similarities to the John McCain-Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama face-off; and so did Editora Globo, the publisher of O Presidente Negro, which reissued the novel during the Democratic primaries in a stroke of marketing genius. Prior to Obama's rise, O Presidente Negro was best-known as an odd sci-fi work, predicting the U.S. government's use of eugenics, a racist ideology that had attracted a following in Brazil at the time Lobato was writing (and, later, in Germany).
As a result of this association, more often than not, bookstores hid the novel at the bottom of a stack of titles in the Brazilian-literature section. (Today's Brazil is increasingly concerned with civil rights, as indicated by recent experiments with affirmative action in education and government.)
Of course, there are several differences between Lobato's story and the circumstances surrounding the 2008 election. In Lobato's fictional world, the United States prohibited the mixing of races—believing it would lead to "disintegration" or "denaturalization"—and thereby conserved white and black races in "a state of relative purity."
Lobato also failed to predict the civil rights movement, which undid his predictions of an extreme version of "separate but equal." Unlike Roy, born in a supposed age of "pure races," Obama, born of a white mother and black father, witnessed America's social revolution.
In the 2228 of the novel, the white women's party, the Sabinas (a reference to the Roman legend of the rape of the Sabine women), has apparently reached feminism's pinnacle: Women are no longer considered equal to men—they are simply different and entirely independent. Homo, the ruling white men's party, and the Sabinas each command 51 million voters.
In previous elections, voters sided with their gender, with no regard to race. But with the creation of the Black Association, black men and women unite to create the largest political party, giving Roy 54 million supporters.
Kerlog is forced to broker an alliance with Roy: black votes in exchange for easing the "Código da Raça" ("Race Code"), which set limits on the growth of the black population through selective breeding and genetic manipulation. To Kerlog's frustration, when the time comes to cast ballots, citizens loyally vote with their identity group, and the black man wins the presidency.
In response, Kerlog threatens race war. He persuades Astor to protect the interests of the white race and encourages an alliance. Lobato, at his most sexist, writes that Astor accepts this proposal on the grounds that man "is woman's husband for thousands of reasons ... long live man!" With hardly a second thought, she shepherds the 51 million female voters to the cause of the Homo Party.
Kerlog demonstrates to a despairing Roy that his race will never assume control, and on the morning Roy is set to assume the presidency, he is found dead in his office. (Lobato hints at murder.) Kerlog calls for a re-election and emerges victorious. White leaders then mastermind the end of the black race in America, using a senseless and tragic sterilization technique, and Roy's dream of serving as the first black man in the nation's most powerful post is left by the wayside.
Long considered a historical relic, O Presidente Negro's popularity had dwindled so much that Editora Globo let it fall out of print, but 6,000 copies have been sold since a March 2008 rerelease. Brazil's intellectuals, bookworms, and bloggers are now madly debating Lobato's racist proposition and gasping at the prescience of one of their country's most quixotic personalities.
Now that McCain has selected Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate—hoping, some critics say, that women will vote as a gender bloc, transferring loyalties to whichever party has a woman on the ticket—perhaps the publishing house can expect yet another sales bump. Only if Obama makes it to the White House would Lobato's prescience fall short. If that happens, maybe Editora Globo's sales streak will come to an end.
Did A Brazilian Cult Novel Predict Hillary, Barack and Sarah?
A 1926 Brazilian sci-fi novel predicts a U.S. election determined by race and gender.
Monteiro Lobato is a household name in his native Brazil, best-known for "SÃtio do Picapau Amarelo" ("Yellow Woodpecker's Ranch"), a series of children's books that has been adapted for television on several occasions.
He was an active businessman and libertarian and is considered the founder of Brazil's publishing industry, but his 1926 science-fiction novel, O Presidente Negro (The Black President)—which foresaw technological, geopolitical, and environmental transformations—is attracting the most interest this year, since it anticipated a political landscape in which gender and race would determine the outcome of a U.S. presidential election.
O Presidente Negro envisions the 2228 U.S. presidential election. In that race, the white male incumbent, President Kerlog, finds himself running against Evelyn Astor, a white feminist, and James Roy Wilde, the cultivated and brilliant leader of the Black Association, "a man who is more than just a single man ... what we call a leader of the masses."
You may notice some similarities to the John McCain-Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama face-off; and so did Editora Globo, the publisher of O Presidente Negro, which reissued the novel during the Democratic primaries in a stroke of marketing genius. Prior to Obama's rise, O Presidente Negro was best-known as an odd sci-fi work, predicting the U.S. government's use of eugenics, a racist ideology that had attracted a following in Brazil at the time Lobato was writing (and, later, in Germany).
As a result of this association, more often than not, bookstores hid the novel at the bottom of a stack of titles in the Brazilian-literature section. (Today's Brazil is increasingly concerned with civil rights, as indicated by recent experiments with affirmative action in education and government.)
Of course, there are several differences between Lobato's story and the circumstances surrounding the 2008 election. In Lobato's fictional world, the United States prohibited the mixing of races—believing it would lead to "disintegration" or "denaturalization"—and thereby conserved white and black races in "a state of relative purity."
Lobato also failed to predict the civil rights movement, which undid his predictions of an extreme version of "separate but equal." Unlike Roy, born in a supposed age of "pure races," Obama, born of a white mother and black father, witnessed America's social revolution.
In the 2228 of the novel, the white women's party, the Sabinas (a reference to the Roman legend of the rape of the Sabine women), has apparently reached feminism's pinnacle: Women are no longer considered equal to men—they are simply different and entirely independent. Homo, the ruling white men's party, and the Sabinas each command 51 million voters.
In previous elections, voters sided with their gender, with no regard to race. But with the creation of the Black Association, black men and women unite to create the largest political party, giving Roy 54 million supporters.
Kerlog is forced to broker an alliance with Roy: black votes in exchange for easing the "Código da Raça" ("Race Code"), which set limits on the growth of the black population through selective breeding and genetic manipulation. To Kerlog's frustration, when the time comes to cast ballots, citizens loyally vote with their identity group, and the black man wins the presidency.
In response, Kerlog threatens race war. He persuades Astor to protect the interests of the white race and encourages an alliance. Lobato, at his most sexist, writes that Astor accepts this proposal on the grounds that man "is woman's husband for thousands of reasons ... long live man!" With hardly a second thought, she shepherds the 51 million female voters to the cause of the Homo Party.
Kerlog demonstrates to a despairing Roy that his race will never assume control, and on the morning Roy is set to assume the presidency, he is found dead in his office. (Lobato hints at murder.) Kerlog calls for a re-election and emerges victorious. White leaders then mastermind the end of the black race in America, using a senseless and tragic sterilization technique, and Roy's dream of serving as the first black man in the nation's most powerful post is left by the wayside.
Long considered a historical relic, O Presidente Negro's popularity had dwindled so much that Editora Globo let it fall out of print, but 6,000 copies have been sold since a March 2008 rerelease. Brazil's intellectuals, bookworms, and bloggers are now madly debating Lobato's racist proposition and gasping at the prescience of one of their country's most quixotic personalities.
Now that McCain has selected Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate—hoping, some critics say, that women will vote as a gender bloc, transferring loyalties to whichever party has a woman on the ticket—perhaps the publishing house can expect yet another sales bump. Only if Obama makes it to the White House would Lobato's prescience fall short. If that happens, maybe Editora Globo's sales streak will come to an end.
Monteiro Lobato is a household name in his native Brazil, best-known for "SÃtio do Picapau Amarelo" ("Yellow Woodpecker's Ranch"), a series of children's books that has been adapted for television on several occasions.
He was an active businessman and libertarian and is considered the founder of Brazil's publishing industry, but his 1926 science-fiction novel, O Presidente Negro (The Black President)—which foresaw technological, geopolitical, and environmental transformations—is attracting the most interest this year, since it anticipated a political landscape in which gender and race would determine the outcome of a U.S. presidential election.
O Presidente Negro envisions the 2228 U.S. presidential election. In that race, the white male incumbent, President Kerlog, finds himself running against Evelyn Astor, a white feminist, and James Roy Wilde, the cultivated and brilliant leader of the Black Association, "a man who is more than just a single man ... what we call a leader of the masses."
You may notice some similarities to the John McCain-Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama face-off; and so did Editora Globo, the publisher of O Presidente Negro, which reissued the novel during the Democratic primaries in a stroke of marketing genius. Prior to Obama's rise, O Presidente Negro was best-known as an odd sci-fi work, predicting the U.S. government's use of eugenics, a racist ideology that had attracted a following in Brazil at the time Lobato was writing (and, later, in Germany).
As a result of this association, more often than not, bookstores hid the novel at the bottom of a stack of titles in the Brazilian-literature section. (Today's Brazil is increasingly concerned with civil rights, as indicated by recent experiments with affirmative action in education and government.)
Of course, there are several differences between Lobato's story and the circumstances surrounding the 2008 election. In Lobato's fictional world, the United States prohibited the mixing of races—believing it would lead to "disintegration" or "denaturalization"—and thereby conserved white and black races in "a state of relative purity."
Lobato also failed to predict the civil rights movement, which undid his predictions of an extreme version of "separate but equal." Unlike Roy, born in a supposed age of "pure races," Obama, born of a white mother and black father, witnessed America's social revolution.
In the 2228 of the novel, the white women's party, the Sabinas (a reference to the Roman legend of the rape of the Sabine women), has apparently reached feminism's pinnacle: Women are no longer considered equal to men—they are simply different and entirely independent. Homo, the ruling white men's party, and the Sabinas each command 51 million voters.
In previous elections, voters sided with their gender, with no regard to race. But with the creation of the Black Association, black men and women unite to create the largest political party, giving Roy 54 million supporters.
Kerlog is forced to broker an alliance with Roy: black votes in exchange for easing the "Código da Raça" ("Race Code"), which set limits on the growth of the black population through selective breeding and genetic manipulation. To Kerlog's frustration, when the time comes to cast ballots, citizens loyally vote with their identity group, and the black man wins the presidency.
In response, Kerlog threatens race war. He persuades Astor to protect the interests of the white race and encourages an alliance. Lobato, at his most sexist, writes that Astor accepts this proposal on the grounds that man "is woman's husband for thousands of reasons ... long live man!" With hardly a second thought, she shepherds the 51 million female voters to the cause of the Homo Party.
Kerlog demonstrates to a despairing Roy that his race will never assume control, and on the morning Roy is set to assume the presidency, he is found dead in his office. (Lobato hints at murder.) Kerlog calls for a re-election and emerges victorious. White leaders then mastermind the end of the black race in America, using a senseless and tragic sterilization technique, and Roy's dream of serving as the first black man in the nation's most powerful post is left by the wayside.
Long considered a historical relic, O Presidente Negro's popularity had dwindled so much that Editora Globo let it fall out of print, but 6,000 copies have been sold since a March 2008 rerelease. Brazil's intellectuals, bookworms, and bloggers are now madly debating Lobato's racist proposition and gasping at the prescience of one of their country's most quixotic personalities.
Now that McCain has selected Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate—hoping, some critics say, that women will vote as a gender bloc, transferring loyalties to whichever party has a woman on the ticket—perhaps the publishing house can expect yet another sales bump. Only if Obama makes it to the White House would Lobato's prescience fall short. If that happens, maybe Editora Globo's sales streak will come to an end.
Monday, December 03, 2007
Far-right leader Vadim Tudor quits resigning, attacks US ambassador
The leader of the far right Great Romania Party (PRM), Corneliu Vadim Tudor, decided not to resign from the Parliament, as he announced after failing to reach the 5% threshold required to win a seat in the European Parliament. The senator motivated his decision by the numerous demands to remain in office received from persons in Romania and abroad, as he declares. Vadim also launched a virulent attack against the US ambassador in Bucharest, Nicholas Taubman, announcing he will demand his expelling from Romania because of some evidence on the involvement of the American official in forging the elections results. Tudor held a 45 minutes speech about Taubman, accusing him of intervention, corruption and terrorism.
Ina press conference, Tudor put on a show, attacking the "Parliament Mafia", warning the corrupt officials that he quit resigning so he could fight them better and could tell about the things he knows. Tudor denounced Taubman's "handy work", claiming that the diplomat "pulled the strings so that Hungarians would gain representation in the European Parliament, instead of Romanian nationalists".
The PRM head says he will ask the US president to expel Taubman: "This shameless man believes he is on a cotton field with red-skinned Indians? He thinks I am afraid of him? He should thank me for not gathering 10,000 people to break in his house and throw him off the window! A terrorist like him has no place in the United Europe!", Vadim shouted.
Source: HotNews
Ina press conference, Tudor put on a show, attacking the "Parliament Mafia", warning the corrupt officials that he quit resigning so he could fight them better and could tell about the things he knows. Tudor denounced Taubman's "handy work", claiming that the diplomat "pulled the strings so that Hungarians would gain representation in the European Parliament, instead of Romanian nationalists".
The PRM head says he will ask the US president to expel Taubman: "This shameless man believes he is on a cotton field with red-skinned Indians? He thinks I am afraid of him? He should thank me for not gathering 10,000 people to break in his house and throw him off the window! A terrorist like him has no place in the United Europe!", Vadim shouted.
Source: HotNews
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Google AdSense Ranking of Candidates
With a minimum bid of $5 for presidential candidate keywords like "mitt", "rudy", and "fred thompson", Google's AdSense should make a nice profit from this election. Of course, a dollar ain't what it used to be...
As expected, Ron Paul leads the pack, earning Google the most money of all the candidates. Ironically, his campaign is probably the only one that does not need to spend a dime on AdSense.
Meanwhile, McCain's campaign appears to be desperately buying up every keyword they can think of. No wonder they are going broke.
Perhaps most surprising, Giuliani does not appear to be bidding on "911" (which costs up to $3,870 per day).
| Keyword | Clicks/Day | Cost/Day |
|---|---|---|
| ron paul | 363 | $1820 |
| mitt | 254-318 | $1280 - $1590 |
| fred thompson | 214-267 | $1,070 - $1,340 |
| hillary | 195 - 247 | $980 - $1,240 |
| obama | 243 - 304 | $250 - $410 |
| rudy | 284 - 355 | $290 - $400 |
| john mccain | 127 - 161 | $130 - $220 |
| kucinich | 9 - 16 | $50 - $80 |
Monday, October 01, 2007
Romania far-right leader supports scandal-friendly starlet for Parliament
Corneliu Vadim Tudor, the leader of Romanian far-right group Greater Romania Party (PRM), considers offering a place on PRM’s list of candidates in future parliamentary elections to Oana Zavoranu, a locally-known telenovela (soap opera) star with a huge appetite for scandals in the media.
Vadim lauded Zavoranu, who now serves as one of his aides, saying that she deserved appreciation and recognition for her activities.
Zavoranu, who’s been figuring prominently in the media as a telenovela actress and a series of public scandals involving her family, joined PRM in November 2006.
Vadim said he made her the offer because the Romanian political life needed some revival with young politicians who “know how to talk and have public appeal”.
HotNews.ro, Sep 28, 2007
Vadim lauded Zavoranu, who now serves as one of his aides, saying that she deserved appreciation and recognition for her activities.
Zavoranu, who’s been figuring prominently in the media as a telenovela actress and a series of public scandals involving her family, joined PRM in November 2006.
Vadim said he made her the offer because the Romanian political life needed some revival with young politicians who “know how to talk and have public appeal”.
HotNews.ro, Sep 28, 2007
President Basescu meets supporters in downtown Bucharest as promised in impeachment referendum
He fails to deliver report on his accomplishments for past 4 months
Romanian President Basescu showed up in Bucharest's University Square on Saturday night to comply with his promise that he would meet his supporters regularly after they helped him pass an impeachment referendum in spring this year.
Some 1,000 people attended the manifestation where Basescu only spoke for several minutes given that another demonstration was taking place in the vicinity.
Basescu's speech lacked political statements as the square hosted a counter-manifestation, organized by ex-President Emil Constantinescu and the National Peasants Party (PNTCD).
Basescu asked the police to knock down the fences delimitating the supporters, saying that “Romanians need to be together”.
President Basescu explained to the journalists that he was unable to deliver the promised report to the people due to the counter-manifestation. Basescu said he will produce the report in the last weekend of December.
In May this year, as he survived a referendum aimed at removing him from office, Basescu had promised to deliver regular reports on his accomplishments as head of state.
On the other side of the fence, former Romanian President, Emil Constantinescu who organized the counter-manifestation without the needed approvals said that he wante to prevent the Square - which was the main stage of the Romanian revolution in 1989 - to become an electoral tool.
HotNews.ro, Oct 1, 2007
Romanian President Basescu showed up in Bucharest's University Square on Saturday night to comply with his promise that he would meet his supporters regularly after they helped him pass an impeachment referendum in spring this year.
Some 1,000 people attended the manifestation where Basescu only spoke for several minutes given that another demonstration was taking place in the vicinity.
Basescu's speech lacked political statements as the square hosted a counter-manifestation, organized by ex-President Emil Constantinescu and the National Peasants Party (PNTCD).
Basescu asked the police to knock down the fences delimitating the supporters, saying that “Romanians need to be together”.
President Basescu explained to the journalists that he was unable to deliver the promised report to the people due to the counter-manifestation. Basescu said he will produce the report in the last weekend of December.
In May this year, as he survived a referendum aimed at removing him from office, Basescu had promised to deliver regular reports on his accomplishments as head of state.
On the other side of the fence, former Romanian President, Emil Constantinescu who organized the counter-manifestation without the needed approvals said that he wante to prevent the Square - which was the main stage of the Romanian revolution in 1989 - to become an electoral tool.
HotNews.ro, Oct 1, 2007
Thursday, August 30, 2007
President Basescu: the garbage disposal facility in Glina threatens to become a symbol of Bucharest
Unless measures are taken to deal with the garbage dumping in Glina, a near-by village next to Bucharest, it will become a symbol of the capital city, President Basescu declared on Friday.
The president intervened after PM Tariceanu failed to convince local authorities to clean the side of the road. Local mayor invoked the lack of funds and no other news was heard thereafter.
Basescu explained that the terrain does not pertain to Bucharest nor to Popesti Leordeni a nearby city but to the States Assets Agency.
Moreover, he added that this is mainly an institutional issue, emblematic for Romanian administration as the Agency lacks both the budget and the means to deal with the garbage.
Located on the road to the seaside, an important auto route towards the SE of Romania, Basescu says it is inadmissible for a European capital city.
HotNews.ro, Aug 2, 2007
The president intervened after PM Tariceanu failed to convince local authorities to clean the side of the road. Local mayor invoked the lack of funds and no other news was heard thereafter.
Basescu explained that the terrain does not pertain to Bucharest nor to Popesti Leordeni a nearby city but to the States Assets Agency.
Moreover, he added that this is mainly an institutional issue, emblematic for Romanian administration as the Agency lacks both the budget and the means to deal with the garbage.
Located on the road to the seaside, an important auto route towards the SE of Romania, Basescu says it is inadmissible for a European capital city.
HotNews.ro, Aug 2, 2007
PM Tariceanu: Statistically, Romanians each eat 24 kilos of bread yearly. Real figure stands at 115
Romanian PM Calin Popescu Tariceanu said Monday that state authorities would launch checks at bread producers to limit the “huge fiscal evasion” affecting the sector. He said during a visit to a bread factory that statistical data announced officially regarding the production and sales of bread are about five times smaller than the real ones.
Thus, while official figures show Romanians each eat 24 kilos of bread annally, they in fact eat 115-120 kilos each.
“Romania is known as a country where people eat a lot of bread. However, we have a smaller official average than Germany, which has 80 kilos of bread per capita annually”, he said.
The intervention comes as bread producers have been the target of media criticism over his fiscal performance after it came to light that a price boost for bread products should be expected in Romania.
Tariceanu stopped short of speaking of how proper a boost in bread prices would be considering the drought currently affecting the country.
HotNews.ro, Jul 30, 2007
Thus, while official figures show Romanians each eat 24 kilos of bread annally, they in fact eat 115-120 kilos each.
“Romania is known as a country where people eat a lot of bread. However, we have a smaller official average than Germany, which has 80 kilos of bread per capita annually”, he said.
The intervention comes as bread producers have been the target of media criticism over his fiscal performance after it came to light that a price boost for bread products should be expected in Romania.
Tariceanu stopped short of speaking of how proper a boost in bread prices would be considering the drought currently affecting the country.
HotNews.ro, Jul 30, 2007
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Hungary to hold siesta referendum
The opinion of almost 8 million Hungarian citizens will be tested on whether they wish to legalize their siestas or not after the National Elections Committee decided the necessity of a referendum in this regard, Reuters informs on Monday.
Those proposing such a law needed 200.000 signatures in order to initiate a referendum on the theme.
The committee previously rejected a referendum proposal that suggested that beer should be free in restaurants. The reason behind the proposal was that this affects the market. Thus, Hungarian citizens are still paying for drinks.
Since the fall of the Communist regime in 1989 and the transition to democracy, Hungary proposed lots of referendums but only two of these got approved, namely those related to NATO and EU membership.
HotNews.ro, Jul 24, 2007
Those proposing such a law needed 200.000 signatures in order to initiate a referendum on the theme.
The committee previously rejected a referendum proposal that suggested that beer should be free in restaurants. The reason behind the proposal was that this affects the market. Thus, Hungarian citizens are still paying for drinks.
Since the fall of the Communist regime in 1989 and the transition to democracy, Hungary proposed lots of referendums but only two of these got approved, namely those related to NATO and EU membership.
HotNews.ro, Jul 24, 2007
Bulgarian President: former secret police informer
The Bulgarian committee researching communist secret service archives announced on Thursday that the present leader in Sofia, Gheorghi Parvanov, was an informer. Parvanos, former member of the communist party, with the undercover name “Gotse” was considered an informer of the secret police from October 4 1989 to July 16 1993, relates AFP.
The committee confirmed that it disposes of signed documents from the agent that contacted Parvanov but mentioned it does not dispose of any actually written documents of the current president.
A law passed in December 2006 in the Bulgarian Parliament obliges authorities to open all security archives. However, the law does not mention the legal consequences applied to former agents and informers.
Parvanov admitted his name is found in the Bulgarian secret service archive after accepting to give the Foreign Affairs Ministry his history thesis on Macedonia, written in the communist period.
The President says that his dossier contains information regarding his activity as a consultant and editor of a book, but denied any direct collaboration with the security.
The committee identified other six agents and former collaborators among candidates running for European Parliamentary elections taken place on May 20, three among former constitutional judges and 15 among the Supreme Court of Magistrates.
HotNews.ro, Jul 20, 2007
The committee confirmed that it disposes of signed documents from the agent that contacted Parvanov but mentioned it does not dispose of any actually written documents of the current president.
A law passed in December 2006 in the Bulgarian Parliament obliges authorities to open all security archives. However, the law does not mention the legal consequences applied to former agents and informers.
Parvanov admitted his name is found in the Bulgarian secret service archive after accepting to give the Foreign Affairs Ministry his history thesis on Macedonia, written in the communist period.
The President says that his dossier contains information regarding his activity as a consultant and editor of a book, but denied any direct collaboration with the security.
The committee identified other six agents and former collaborators among candidates running for European Parliamentary elections taken place on May 20, three among former constitutional judges and 15 among the Supreme Court of Magistrates.
HotNews.ro, Jul 20, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
President promulgates controversial pensions law
The controversial decision to increase the state-paid pensions was promulgated on Wednesday by president Basescu, not before calling the ministers who explained to the supplementary funds will be raised "incompetent" and "dilettantes". President Basescu says he promulgated the law due to the consensus in the Parliament on the subject.
In a press conference, Basescu pitiless criticized the Government. "I asked for an economic analysis on the way the pensions' growth will affect the budget and I got a letter full of electoral goals. The two ministers who signed it (Economy Minister Varujan Vosganian and Labor Minister Paul Pacuraru) are, from my point of view, incompetent.
I asked the prime minister to answer my query about the funding, but the prime minister didn't assume responsibility for the letter coming from his ministers... he didn't sign any document", said Traian Basescu.
According to the president's sources, namely the National Prognosis Institute, the pensions' growth will represent a budgetary effort of 30 billion euros between 2008 and 2013, exactly the amount the European Union offers Romania for development.
Finance Minister Varujan Vosganian replied immediately after the press conference, explaining that the Government has the money to support the pensions' growth, due to the general economic growth. "We can explain where the money comes from", said the minister a bit late, considering the weeks of scandals around the subject and the zero-information letter he offered as answer.
"The president didn't want this law because he didn't suggest it himself, in order to raise more electoral capital", said Vosganian.
HotNews.ro, Jul 18, 2007
In a press conference, Basescu pitiless criticized the Government. "I asked for an economic analysis on the way the pensions' growth will affect the budget and I got a letter full of electoral goals. The two ministers who signed it (Economy Minister Varujan Vosganian and Labor Minister Paul Pacuraru) are, from my point of view, incompetent.
I asked the prime minister to answer my query about the funding, but the prime minister didn't assume responsibility for the letter coming from his ministers... he didn't sign any document", said Traian Basescu.
According to the president's sources, namely the National Prognosis Institute, the pensions' growth will represent a budgetary effort of 30 billion euros between 2008 and 2013, exactly the amount the European Union offers Romania for development.
Finance Minister Varujan Vosganian replied immediately after the press conference, explaining that the Government has the money to support the pensions' growth, due to the general economic growth. "We can explain where the money comes from", said the minister a bit late, considering the weeks of scandals around the subject and the zero-information letter he offered as answer.
"The president didn't want this law because he didn't suggest it himself, in order to raise more electoral capital", said Vosganian.
HotNews.ro, Jul 18, 2007
Romania Government's letter to President Basescu: pensions boost without tax increase
The Romanian government made public on Tuesday the letter sent to President Basescu regarding the sources it takes into consideration to support a pensions boost promised by a new pensions law that sparked much ado in Bucharest lately.
The document shows that the effects of economic development, the growth of both salaries and employees will determine pensions to grow with 43% in 2008.
The letter is signed by the Finance and Labor ministers and is a response to President Basescu's demand of detailed info in this regard. The head of state threatened not to sign the pensions law unless he received financial proof to sustain the measure.
According to the National Prognosis Commission, between 2009 and 2013 Romania will report a 6% economic growth annually and the labor force will grow by 400,000.
HotNews.ro, Jul 17, 2007
The document shows that the effects of economic development, the growth of both salaries and employees will determine pensions to grow with 43% in 2008.
The letter is signed by the Finance and Labor ministers and is a response to President Basescu's demand of detailed info in this regard. The head of state threatened not to sign the pensions law unless he received financial proof to sustain the measure.
According to the National Prognosis Commission, between 2009 and 2013 Romania will report a 6% economic growth annually and the labor force will grow by 400,000.
HotNews.ro, Jul 17, 2007
Dick Marty Report reaches the European Parliament
The European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties and Justice debates the report written by Dick Marty regarding CIA prisons in Europe on Tuesday. The document was passed by the Council of Europe last month and accuses Romania and Poland of hosting detention centers between 2003 and 2005.
The Dick Marty report is based upon a series of declarations of 30 secret service officials from Europe and USA. However, authorities in both Romania and Poland rejected the accusations, one of the reasons being that none of the sources is identified.
The Swiss rapporteur sustained that anonymous sources should be maintained as such otherwise the individuals would be accused of high treason in their home countries.
US President, George W Bush admitted in September 2006 that, CIA detainees, with important functions in al Qaeda were retained in secret prisons outside the USA but did not mention any country.
HotNews.ro, Jul 17, 2007
The Dick Marty report is based upon a series of declarations of 30 secret service officials from Europe and USA. However, authorities in both Romania and Poland rejected the accusations, one of the reasons being that none of the sources is identified.
The Swiss rapporteur sustained that anonymous sources should be maintained as such otherwise the individuals would be accused of high treason in their home countries.
US President, George W Bush admitted in September 2006 that, CIA detainees, with important functions in al Qaeda were retained in secret prisons outside the USA but did not mention any country.
HotNews.ro, Jul 17, 2007
Monday, July 16, 2007
Romanian trust ugly politicians more
Normally, good-looking politicians gain the trust of the populace everywhere in the world, beauty being often associated with confidence. A poll conducted by the Social Research Bureau had contrary results in Romania, showing that electors tend to trust more in less good-looking politicians.
Thus, 14% of Romanians say that the ugliest man on the political stage is the very head of state, President Traian Basescu, who also enjoys the trust of over half of Romanians.
In the "ugly top", Basescu is followed by far-right leader C.V. Tudor, former president Ion Iliescu and Senate speaker Nicolae Vacaroiu.
The most beautiful (and least trusted) are Cristian Boureanu, Prime Minister Calin Popescu Tariceanu, "President's Blonde" Elena Udrea and controversial Gigi Becali.
HotNews.ro, Jul 12, 2007
Thus, 14% of Romanians say that the ugliest man on the political stage is the very head of state, President Traian Basescu, who also enjoys the trust of over half of Romanians.
In the "ugly top", Basescu is followed by far-right leader C.V. Tudor, former president Ion Iliescu and Senate speaker Nicolae Vacaroiu.
The most beautiful (and least trusted) are Cristian Boureanu, Prime Minister Calin Popescu Tariceanu, "President's Blonde" Elena Udrea and controversial Gigi Becali.
HotNews.ro, Jul 12, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)